Nico Rosberg has won the inaugural Grand Prix at Baku, leading the race from start to finish. Sebastian Vettel finished a distant second, and he too was unthreatened in that position. Perhaps the happiest man on the podium was Sergio Perez, who followed up on his podium finish at Monaco some weeks earlier.
No one said anything, because it's assumed members of F1T know where to find the proof.SR71 wrote: That's not really an answer though. This thread spent 3-4 pages bashing and calling names to Marko yet now that we have 51 laps of sector 3 data I don't hear anyone using evidence to back up their claims.
I guess it's just more anti red bull F1T bias... People here seem to love hating on red bull just for the fun of it.
dans79 wrote:No one said anything, because it's assumed members of F1T know where to find the proof.SR71 wrote: That's not really an answer though. This thread spent 3-4 pages bashing and calling names to Marko yet now that we have 51 laps of sector 3 data I don't hear anyone using evidence to back up their claims.
I guess it's just more anti red bull F1T bias... People here seem to love hating on red bull just for the fun of it.
http://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula-o ... rmation-10
then answer is 0.449
Race best sector times aren't that useful, as to many variables are in play. Qualifying is a better gauge of the cars ability.SR71 wrote: Thanks for the link. Actually it looks like Red Bull's low DF strategy put them 0.1 seconds faster than merc in sector 3 and only 0.1 seconds slower than Perez who holds the record.
Classic Marko! Gotta love that guy and his ability to troll some F1 fans, he's almost as good as Bernie.
No he couldn't have. Wolfe said himself it was a .2 second disparity and Hamilton was driving like Ronald McDonald allbasti313 wrote:Which was a fault, because he could have easily catched Rai with the speed of Ros and the penalty.Schuttelberg wrote:No, he simply turned the engine down himself to save it as he realised he wouldn't catch and pass Perez.PhillipM wrote:Hamilton said he fixed it for one lap then it came back - which he set purple sectors in when it was working...
What did Wolff say about 0.2sec? All I see in the laptime data is,that Ros pace after the problem was more than sufficient to catch Rai. And you surely do not want to say, that Ham is slower than Ros, who just kept the 20 sec distance to Vet.Chuckjr wrote:No he couldn't have. Wolfe said himself it was a .2 second disparity and Hamilton was driving like Ronald McDonald allbasti313 wrote:Which was a fault, because he could have easily catched Rai with the speed of Ros and the penalty.Schuttelberg wrote:
No, he simply turned the engine down himself to save it as he realised he wouldn't catch and pass Perez.
weekend. Ham just has a way of making everyone believe he can always win and can always catch anybody because of his general dimeanor. He would have never caught anybody on Sunday. He's good but he's not that good.
basti313 wrote: What did Wolff say about 0.2sec? All I see in the laptime data is,that Ros pace after the problem was more than sufficient to catch Rai. And you surely do not want to say, that Ham is slower than Ros, who just kept the 20 sec distance to Vet.
this makes what was wrong even more confusing."Right now we don't know how much it affected his race overall," he admitted, "we will analyse it when we are back in the factory, but from what we have seen I would estimate it at 0.2 seconds a lap.
I'd love to know what they mean by " incorrectly calibrated the maps" !But a Mercedes source told Auto Motor und Sport on Monday: "It was our fault. We had incorrectly calibrated the maps."
Senior engineer Andy Shovlin confirmed: "Even we needed a couple of laps to understand what was going on and how to resolve it."
Paddy said 0.4sec after the race.dans79 wrote:basti313 wrote: What did Wolff say about 0.2sec? All I see in the laptime data is,that Ros pace after the problem was more than sufficient to catch Rai. And you surely do not want to say, that Ham is slower than Ros, who just kept the 20 sec distance to Vet.
He estimates it here, "estimates" being the key word. I think it would carry a lot more weight if it came from Paddy.
http://www.pitpass.com/56474/Wolff-reve ... -02s-a-lap
"Right now we don't know how much it affected his race overall," he admitted, "we will analyse it when we are back in the factory, but from what we have seen I would estimate it at 0.2 seconds a lap.
They had a wrong deployment strategy when the car was lighter on fuel. They did not calibrate the speed gain due to less weight correctly, thus, the MGU-K deployed too long.dans79 wrote: this makes what was wrong even more confusing.
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns34190.htmlI'd love to know what they mean by " incorrectly calibrated the maps" !But a Mercedes source told Auto Motor und Sport on Monday: "It was our fault. We had incorrectly calibrated the maps."
Senior engineer Andy Shovlin confirmed: "Even we needed a couple of laps to understand what was going on and how to resolve it."
They had a wrong deployment strategy when the car was lighter on fuel. They did not calibrate the speed gain due to less weight correctly, thus, the MGU-K deployed too long.[/quote]basti313 wrote: I'd love to know what they mean by " incorrectly calibrated the maps" !
dans79 wrote:They had a wrong deployment strategy when the car was lighter on fuel. They did not calibrate the speed gain due to less weight correctly, thus, the MGU-K deployed too long.basti313 wrote: I'd love to know what they mean by " incorrectly calibrated the maps" !
Yes, it charged too early between turn 2 and 3. That was the problem with the laptime.dans79 wrote: I wonder if that also effected harvesting, because that would explain a lot.
It's not Lowe's vs Wolff's estimation (AKA I like Hamilton so I choose the higher number) but team's estimation and it's 0,2 s as of now.http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/merce ... ap-790152/basti313 wrote:Paddy said 0.4sec after the race.dans79 wrote:basti313 wrote: What did Wolff say about 0.2sec? All I see in the laptime data is,that Ros pace after the problem was more than sufficient to catch Rai. And you surely do not want to say, that Ham is slower than Ros, who just kept the 20 sec distance to Vet.
He estimates it here, "estimates" being the key word. I think it would carry a lot more weight if it came from Paddy.
http://www.pitpass.com/56474/Wolff-reve ... -02s-a-lap
"Right now we don't know how much it affected his race overall," he admitted, "we will analyse it when we are back in the factory, but from what we have seen I would estimate it at 0.2 seconds a lap.
From the data: Ham lost 15sec in free air between Ros pitstop, lap 21, and before Ham fastest lap, lap 41. If we exclude lap 31 which was extremely slow for Ros due to a backmarker, we are close to 1sec per lap. This looks ridiculously slow.
They had a wrong deployment strategy when the car was lighter on fuel. They did not calibrate the speed gain due to less weight correctly, thus, the MGU-K deployed too long.dans79 wrote: this makes what was wrong even more confusing.
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns34190.htmlI'd love to know what they mean by " incorrectly calibrated the maps" !But a Mercedes source told Auto Motor und Sport on Monday: "It was our fault. We had incorrectly calibrated the maps."
Senior engineer Andy Shovlin confirmed: "Even we needed a couple of laps to understand what was going on and how to resolve it."
Let's wait if it stays the same or goes up after thorough investigation. Do you expect it going up by 100%?...extra power boost at certain sections of the track may have felt worse from the cockpit than the reality of the time lost. “We don’t know how much it is [exactly], and we need to analyse how much it is,” explained Wolff. “But as per the data – it is 0.2 seconds per lap. “It must have felt like much more though because the engine was derating between Turns Two and Three, where you expect the biggest boost.”
dans79 wrote:Race best sector times aren't that useful, as to many variables are in play. Qualifying is a better gauge of the cars ability.SR71 wrote: Thanks for the link. Actually it looks like Red Bull's low DF strategy put them 0.1 seconds faster than merc in sector 3 and only 0.1 seconds slower than Perez who holds the record.
Classic Marko! Gotta love that guy and his ability to troll some F1 fans, he's almost as good as Bernie.
The problem is, that all of this +0.2 to +0.4sec for derating is limited to 12 laps. The usual difference between Ros and Ham if anyone has a bad day is something like 0.3sec. Maybe 0.5sec if it is a really bad day. All "out of rhythm", not queuing with Ros for the toilet, stages, whatever I can not count additionally.iotar__ wrote:It's not Lowe's vs Wolff's estimation (AKA I like Hamilton so I choose the higher number) but team's estimation and it's 0,2 s as of now.http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/merce ... ap-790152/basti313 wrote:Paddy said 0.4sec after the race.dans79 wrote:
He estimates it here, "estimates" being the key word. I think it would carry a lot more weight if it came from Paddy.
http://www.pitpass.com/56474/Wolff-reve ... -02s-a-lap
From the data: Ham lost 15sec in free air between Ros pitstop, lap 21, and before Ham fastest lap, lap 41. If we exclude lap 31 which was extremely slow for Ros due to a backmarker, we are close to 1sec per lap. This looks ridiculously slow.
They had a wrong deployment strategy when the car was lighter on fuel. They did not calibrate the speed gain due to less weight correctly, thus, the MGU-K deployed too long.dans79 wrote: this makes what was wrong even more confusing.
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns34190.html
I'd love to know what they mean by " incorrectly calibrated the maps" !Let's wait if it stays the same or goes up after thorough investigation. Do you expect it going up by 100%?...extra power boost at certain sections of the track may have felt worse from the cockpit than the reality of the time lost. “We don’t know how much it is [exactly], and we need to analyse how much it is,” explained Wolff. “But as per the data – it is 0.2 seconds per lap. “It must have felt like much more though because the engine was derating between Turns Two and Three, where you expect the biggest boost.”
"close to 1sec per lap. This looks ridiculously slow." Why? It was 0,2 let's add 0,1 = 0,7 1. They attribute it to the loss of rhythm, and concentration: 0,3 s? 2. earlier posted article (Amus) mentioned slower overall pace (tyres, braking, traffic?) which perhaps means that the other driver was simply quicker? Is 0,25 OK? 3. How about stages, other factors? Rosberg was comfortably leading so I'm not sure if comparisons between drivers at different times make full sense here. +0,x - 0,x for either = tenths? They expected Hamilton to beat only Raikkonen without problems, Perez was too quick.
lol, it's more like the head development vs the head of marketing/public relations.iotar__ wrote: It's not Lowe's vs Wolff's estimation (AKA I like Hamilton so I choose the higher number) but team's estimation and it's 0,2 s as of now.http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/merce ... ap-790152/Let's wait if it stays the same or goes up after thorough investigation. Do you expect it going up by 100%?...extra power boost at certain sections of the track may have felt worse from the cockpit than the reality of the time lost. “We don’t know how much it is [exactly], and we need to analyse how much it is,” explained Wolff. “But as per the data – it is 0.2 seconds per lap. “It must have felt like much more though because the engine was derating between Turns Two and Three, where you expect the biggest boost.”
Mercedes motorsport boss Toto Wolff reckoned, however, that the electronic setting that left the drivers without an extra power boost at certain sections of the track may have felt worse from the cockpit than the reality of the time lost.
“We don’t know how much it is [exactly], and we need to analyse how much it is,” explained Wolff. “But as per the data – it is 0.2 seconds per lap.
If you compare the best sector times Between Merc & RBR you get RBR down in every sector.SR71 wrote:
Thats true, that half second in one sector is still pretty mega.
I'm curious if this 1.2 estimation and .5 seconds actual gives us a hint at the results tolerance between simulation and actual physics.... Also the large difference could be because they had no data on the track.
